U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2010, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,688,375 times
Reputation: 12214

Advertisements

For those that think the human is superior to all other creatures, I say this.... Humans could not survive in the conditions that other creatures have adapted to...Many have communication skills that are superior in some ways to ours. Many have senses that we lack, and even the senses that we share are greatly enhanced in many other animals compared to ours, and at least one is far better at one of the functions of the brain than we are....

I cannot do what this chimp can do....Can you?


YouTube - Chimpanzee Memory Test
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2010, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,069,422 times
Reputation: 3717
Default Whad'I tell yah? Right on cue!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Transitional fossils are a myth that some use to believed in. Yet, science had no hard evidence to back up that myth. And that is why, (YOU HAVE STATED) they are no longer the "holy grail". They were once believed to be. Yet (NOW,) they are not. And that is because, your "holy grail" never existed in the first place. You say I quote mine Henry Gee. Yet it was Gee who basically told you, the fossil record cannot be used to prove evolution. Because such tales of the fossil record, amount to nothing more than storytelling. And that is reason, your "holy grail" has vanished.

And he makes my point. Again! Predictably! BRAVO, Tom!


Let's see here. Transitional fossils are not a myth, just the exact positioning of them by old museum methods. Henry did not dismiss archeological or paleontological finds per se, now did he, Tom? Any fossil found and then attempted to be exactly and correctly placed in a lineage hierarchy by appearance or deductive reasoning, without further hard evidence, is either going to be suspect or will be subject to endless derision. Especially given the intensely volatile nature of the discussion and it's potential impact on ancient Christian mythology, mired as that is in the unprovable and implausible.

Even when given a proven fact, fundamentalist Christian literalists cannot get their heads around such things, so heaven help us when we make merely logical suggestions. There had to be something better than comparative physiology to "place" a fossil within the lineage stream.

Given DNA sequencing, Henry simply took hold of that old argument and laid it to rest, all the while asserting that more modern techniques have made the old British museum techniques of the late 1800s, used until recently (at least up until about years ago...) obsolete. As they should be.

Yes, he said that process was, now, obsolete. He also said that Evolution was, of course, a now-proven fact, and that dis-believers were delusional. Tom just tries to beat an already very dead horse and hopes the stink of some old and no-longer utilized technique and thinking (again, 20 years old...) will somehow rub off, by association, onto Evolution.

C34 just didn't want to either...

1) read the rest of what Henry Gee said, or

2) selectively ignored it.


Oddly, even when we went into it in great detail on that past thread, and showed him, many times over, what Henry REALLY said, and what he REALLY meant, C34 just clammed up, didn't respond, and chose to purposefully ignore his words and ideas.

As DNA lineage tracking has become widely available over the past few years, it's inerrant and incontrovertible proofs will allow us to position any future, and many past, archeological finds in their correct sequence, or very close to it. Or, it may show where some organism should be, but has not been discovered yet, though it's also obvious that we're constantly finding new ones.

The supply of new information for science to mull over is pretty much endless, and is a constant source of terror to the fundy mindset. You know, given that their source of all knowledge is strictly limited to a badly written non-scientific book of myths, re-translated several dozen time.

Genome mapping may well predict exactly what we need to find, and Gaw-Lee, Andy, when we then DO find exactly those multiple Missing Links, but this time proven by DNA sequencing, we'll have something to celebrate, huh?
____________________________________

(See, the old British museum types also speculated that there had to be only one "link", a part Ape, part-man fossil or remnant out there. In fact, there will be a graduated series, as Evolution is wont to generate. That's also what we've found when investigating other species.

BTW, We reserve the right to improve our techniques, no matter how frustrating that self-improvement mechanism is to the literalist's stuck-in-one-mudhole mindset. Unfortunately for them, they can't hold it against us, though they try.)

_____________________________________

Science does not step on it's own neck in general, Tom. It clarifies, refines, improves or revises. Your futile and infantile attempts to denigrate it by mis-quotes and repeated chanting of dis-proven ideas does not advance your chances for graduating this year. Or ever.

Quote:
Finally, Tom, I'd like to hear your informed and technical reasoning as to exactly how and where DNA genome mapping might be unreliable. So far, you've remained "mum" on the subject, retreating into your burrow at it's mention.

So...let's get into it, because sooner or later you're going to have to face that one straight on. In researching it, I have found that so far, AiG and The Creation Institute have not been able to pick any holes in it, so this may be fundy Christianity's Waterloo.
I'm going for that drink! Anyone else? Tea? Truth Serum?

Last edited by rifleman; 03-21-2010 at 12:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,069,422 times
Reputation: 3717
Default The Truth Accoding to Henry Beston, not Henry Gee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
For those that think the human is superior to all other creatures, I say this.... Humans could not survive in the conditions that other creatures have adapted to...Many have communication skills that are superior in some ways to ours. Many have senses that we lack, and even the senses that we share are greatly enhanced in many other animals compared to ours, and at least one is far better at one of the functions of the brain than we are....
Quite so!

Henry Beston; Author (1888-1968)

From: The Outermost House. A classic quote, most applicable here.

"We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err.

For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."


By extension, of course, one must conclude that many species are far more advanced than us in key areas of functionality, are the products of a much longer evolutionary pathway, and have achieved significantly higher levels of functionality and success in their specific niches.

Cheers!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 01:11 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,677,456 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Ignorance or dishonesty? Transitional fossils exist, are proven, but are no longer the only means of proving evolution. I don't really know why I waste my time explaining to one as blind to facts as you appear to be...I suppose my hope is that others will read the posts and see the truth of evolution and abandon the silly creation myths.
The Bible has obvious truth that can be found in stone. Transitional fossils are a belief that are only supported by one's own imagination. I believe Gee calls this, storytelling. So, is Henry Gee using ignorance or dishonesty? What does Gee mean by storytelling sanspeur? You say I misquoted him. Can you tell us what he really meant? Especially when he said those who tell stories about the fossil record, are storytellers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,688,375 times
Reputation: 12214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
The Bible has obvious truth that can be found in stone. Transitional fossils are a belief that are only supported by one's own imagination. I believe Gee calls this, storytelling. So, is Henry Gee using ignorance or dishonesty? What does Gee mean by storytelling sanspeur? You say I misquoted him. Can you tell us what he really meant? Especially when he said those who tell stories about the fossil record, are storytellers?
I'm not going back over old ground that's proven your quote mining...It is you that is using dishonesty, not Gee....I hardly think it's ignorance on your part unless that ignorance is intentional...If it is then it's still dishonest. I could bury you in fossils and you'd still deny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 01:29 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,952,585 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Konraden? Sans? Why don't we all just go out for a drink instead of wearing our finger tips off with these kids?
I argue with creationists not because I expect to change the creationists preconceived notions (the religious story is far more important to them than reality), but because there are those that read this stuff with genuine questions and looking for genuine answers.

Every creationist I have spoken with and debated has been absolutely ignorant of the theory itself. Those that know the theory, are not creationists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 01:33 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,952,585 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I could bury you in fossils and you'd still deny.
Literally? Because it would be pretty funny to see someone buried in a giant mound of fossils and from somewhere within that pile, the whimpering of a creationists insisting that none of them are "transitional." You'd have to send a rescue dog in after Campbell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 01:47 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,677,456 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
And he makes my point. Again! Predictably! BRAVO, Tom!

Let's see here. Transitional fossils are not a myth, just the exact positioning of them by old museum methods. Henry did not dismiss archeological or paleontological finds per se, now did he, Tom? Any fossil found and then attempted to be exactly and correctly placed in a lineage hierarchy by appearance or deductive reasoning, without further hard evidence, is either going to be suspect or will be subject to endless derision. Especially given the intensely volatile nature of the discussion and it's potential impact on ancient Christian mythology, mired as that is in the unprovable and implausible.

Even when given a proven fact, fundamentalist Christian literalists cannot get their heads around such things, so heaven help us when we make merely logical suggestions. There had to be something better than comparative physiology to "place" a fossil within the lineage stream.

Given DNA sequencing, Henry simply took hold of that old argument and laid it to rest, all the while asserting that more modern techniques have made the old British museum techniques of the late 1800s, used until recently (at least up until about years ago...) obsolete. As they should be.

Yes, he said that process was, now, obsolete. He also said that Evolution was, of course, a now-proven fact, and that dis-believers were delusional. Tom just tries to beat an already very dead horse and hopes the stink of some old and no-longer utilized technique and thinking (again, 20 years old...) will somehow rub off, by association, onto Evolution.

C34 just didn't want to either...

1) read the rest of what Henry Gee said, or

2) selectively ignored it.

Oddly, even when we went into it in great detail on that past thread, and showed him, many times over, what Henry REALLY said, and what he REALLY meant, C34 just clammed up, didn't respond, and chose to purposefully ignore his words and ideas.

As DNA lineage tracking has become widely available over the past few years, it's inerrant and incontrovertible proofs will allow us to position any future, and many past, archeological finds in their correct sequence, or very close to it. Or, it may show where some organism should be, but has not been discovered yet, though it's also obvious that we're constantly finding new ones.

The supply of new information for science to mull over is pretty much endless, and is a constant source of terror to the fundy mindset. You know, given that their source of all knowledge is strictly limited to a badly written non-scientific book of myths, re-translated several dozen time.

Genome mapping may well predict exactly what we need to find, and Gaw-Lee, Andy, when we then DO find exactly those multiple Missing Links, but this time proven by DNA sequencing, we'll have something to celebrate, huh?
____________________________________

(See, the old British museum types also speculated that there had to be only one "link", a part Ape, part-man fossil or remnant out there. In fact, there will be a graduated series, as Evolution is wont to generate. That's also what we've found when investigating other species.

BTW, We reserve the right to improve our techniques, no matter how frustrating that self-improvement mechanism is to the literalist's stuck-in-one-mudhole mindset. Unfortunately for them, they can't hold it against us, though they try.)
_____________________________________

Science does not step on it's own neck in general, Tom. It clarifies, refines, improves or revises. Your futile and infantile attempts to denigrate it by mis-quotes and repeated chanting of dis-proven ideas does not advance your chances for graduating this year. Or ever.



I'm going for that drink! Anyone else? Tea? Truth Serum?





Henry did not dismiss archeological or paleontological finds per se, now did he, Tom?

Oh rifleman, he really did so much more than that.

Henry tells us, that the intervals of time that seperate fossils are so huge (THAT WE CANNOT SAY ANYTHING DEFINITE ABOUT THEIR POSSIBLE CONNECTION THROUGH ANCESTRY AND DESCENT).

And he also tells us. (TO TAKE A LINE OF FOSSILS AND CLAIM THAT THEY REPRESENT A LINEAGE IS NOT A SCEINTIFIC HYPOTHESIS THAT CAN BE TESTED, BUT AN ASSERTION THAT CARRIES THE SAME VALIDITY AS A BEDTIME STORY--AMUSING, PERHAPS EVEN INSTRUCTIVE, BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Of course Henry believes in evolution. I'm just pointing out another example of evolutions past B.S. And this faked evidence was pushed on an entire generation. And there are still people who believe Henry is wrong, and that you can line up all these fossils as a proof for evolution. The whole theory has been pushed alone for years with nonsense examples and faked proofs. That's all I'm saying. I did not mis-quote Henry at all rifleman. I used his own words. And he tells us, trying to take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. But an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story.

I agree with him. Do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 02:06 PM
 
1,838 posts, read 1,932,056 times
Reputation: 179
______________________________________

BTW, doeable; the ability to reason is absolutely not limited to humans. Dogs who have been previously abused often cower at the mere sight of a stick. The polar bears I studied learned my voice, and when they had been subjected to a few exposures to a 60kV electrified fence, they shied away from it forever after. Chickens and pigeons easily learn colors in exchange for rewards. A little male chickadee in my garden only comes to me for some sunflower seeds, but not to my wife. Rats, mice, even snails, have all been "taught", which requires memory and an ability to access past experiences embedded in the brain and react to them. For self-preservation or food or warmth or shelter. Precisely the same things we react to.

You are suffering under that Genesis scripture nonsense, where you're told that God assigned us "dominion over the lesser beasts". What arrogant crappola!

Konraden? Sans? Why don't we all just go out for a drink instead of wearing our finger tips off with these kids?[/quote]

are you mad man i didnt say animals have no intellegence what i did say is that there is a massive difference between our intellegence and that of the smartest animal-try talkin all this evolution nonsense to an animal and see what reaction you get

BTW-i dont base my knowledge on the bible

devotees see all life with equal vision because they understand that God exists in the hearts of every living entity as the supersoul also within every atom its called the Paramatma feature-thats why they dont kill animals even to eat-bet you wouldnt have a problem of eating a dead cow though
so maybe its you that think you have dominion over the lesser beasts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 02:28 PM
 
1,838 posts, read 1,932,056 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
For those that think the human is superior to all other creatures, I say this.... Humans could not survive in the conditions that other creatures have adapted to...Many have communication skills that are superior in some ways to ours. Many have senses that we lack, and even the senses that we share are greatly enhanced in many other animals compared to ours, and at least one is far better at one of the functions of the brain than we are....

I cannot do what this chimp can do....Can you?


YouTube - Chimpanzee Memory Test
of course the human is superior to all other creatures on this planet if you can show me 1 creature that is superior to us then go ahead-ok each createure has its own way of surviving in its enviroment but as far as intellegence their is none superior to us- thats a fact m8

practice and youll get it- how long did it take the chimp

but the real differnce between them and us is that we can advance spiritually and learn fully of our existance while they are completely ignorant to their spiritual nature and if you are completely ignorant of your spiritual nature then your no different than they are no matter how materially advanced you are
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top